The Minnesota Supreme Court has asked for comments on a proposed mandatory e-filing and e-service (collectively E-file) pilot project in the Second (Ramsey) and Fourth (Hennepin) Judicial Districts. The request for comments is a result of a report filed last week by the Minnesota Supreme  Court  Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court’s Order and the Advisory Committee’s Report can be found here.

Because of the statewide implications of the pilot project, the Advisory Committee does not want to have E-file rules stated only in a pilot project order. Instead the Advisory Committee has proposed changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure, General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, and the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch. The effective date for any changes to rules would be at least 90 days after the Court’s order of adoption. If adopted, the rules will implement a pilot project mandating electronic filing and electronic service by attorneys and government agencies in certain categories of civil actions filed in the Second and Fourth Judicial Districts. Pro se parties may continue to paper file.

The Advisory Committee intends to have e-filing and e-service rules mirror the existing paper filing provisions.  The rules are intended to work for both the pilot project as well as for any expansion of the project or for any statewide adoption of e-filing. The Court’s Order details the process for providing comments on the proposed rules.

© Nancy Hupp for Practice Blawg, 2012. | Permalink | No comments yet | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: E-Filing, e-service

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Practicelaw.org, the MSBA’s online source of forms and other practice resources, has recently expanded its civil litigation form set. MSBA members now have access to forms spanning every phase of civil litigation.

During November and December, 21 new civil litigation forms joined the 25 civil litigation forms already on the site:

• CIV-431   Order (Proposed)
• CIV-436   Order for Summary Judgment (Proposed)
• CIV-437   Order Denying Summary Judgment (Proposed)
• CIV-460   Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery – General
• CIV-462   Certification of Compliance with Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.10
• CIV-463   Order Compelling Discovery (Proposed)
• CIV-480   Notice of Motion and Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to [Rule 11][Minn. Stat. 549.211]
• CIV-568   Rule 68 Offer of Settlement (Total Obligation)
• CIV-569   Rule 68 Offer of Judgment (Damages Only)
• CIV-580   Witness and Exhibit List
• CIV-583   Authorization for Release of Financial Information
• CIV-585   Authorization for Release of Personnel Records
• CIV-602   Notice of Dismissal
• CIV-603   Order for Dismissal Pursuant to R. 41
• CIV-604   Stipulation for Dismissal
• CIV-605   Order for Dismissal (Pursuant to Stipulation)
• CIV-606   Confession of Judgment
• CIV-607   Promissory Note
• CIV-818   Waiver of Independent Counsel

A form Settlement Agreement is in draft stage and should be posted soon as well.

We decided to add additional civil litigation forms because of survey data and user requests. We survey practicelaw users annually, and the percentage of users who indicate that they’ve used or relied upon civil litigation forms has increased each year:

• 2009 – 29%
• 2010 – 33%
• 2011 – 38%

Additionally, 98% of users surveyed this month indicated that practice-related forms are the most valuable of all those resources posted on practicelaw.

Also, just a reminder that in addition to civil litigation forms, the MSBA has other resources helpful to the civil litigator, namely a Statute of Limitations Handbook and a Judicial Survey Service. The Service collects information from district court judges with respect to their individual preferences on motion practice and courtroom conduct. The information is organized by judicial district and by the judge’s name.

Let us know if you have any comments or suggestions on the new forms.

© Nancy Hupp for Practice Blawg, 2011. | Permalink | No comments yet | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

• CIV-420 Notice of Motion and Motion
• CIV-432 Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss [or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment]
• CIV-434 Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment
• CIV-455 Notice of Taking Deposition [Individual]
• CIV-456 Notice of Taking Deposition of Representative of [Organization]
• CIV-585 Authorization for Release of Employment Records
• CIV-612 Affidavit of No Answer, Non-Military Status, Identification, Amount Due, and Costs and Disbursements [Corporate Defaulting Party]

As always, let us know what you think, what forms and resources (in all practice areas) you’d like to see added to practicelaw.

Now you are ready to go forth and sue and be sued.

© Nancy Hupp for Practice Blawg, 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

In an earlier blog post, Greg discussed the big change to the Summons. He posted again when it was available on practicelaw and also explained why practicelaw was not preparing a similarly new summons for family law matters. The new Summons form is now quite a big longer, but written in “plain English” thus more understandable to the lay person. We posted the new Summons on practicelaw beside the old form. Today, the old form comes down.

The revision impacts other forms as well. The current Uniform Conveyancing Blank 40.6.2, Notice of Lis Pendens for Mechanic’s Lien Action, contains the required, soon to be outdated, summons.

When the Uniform Conveyancing Blank (UCB) Task Force met a few weeks ago, they discussed whether to replace the old summons language with the new or, given the increased length, whether to add it as an attachment. Being the careful wordsmiths they are, they turned to the statute which requires a lis pendens to be recorded. Minn. Stat. 514.12, subd. 1 provides in part:

At the beginning of the action the plaintiff shall file for record with the county recorder or, if registered land, with the registrar of titles of the county in which it is brought, and of the several counties if the lien be claimed under section 514.04, a notice of the pendency thereof, embracing therein a copy of the summons, omitting the caption. (emphasis added).

So while the summons itself is now clear, not so the statute. After a mildly spirited discussion, reasonable minds differed and the Task Force adjourned, tabling the revision to UCB 40.6.2 until its next meeting in September. Today we will also take down this now-outdated UCB and add a note to practitioners.

In addition to the new summons form, the Supreme Court’s Order also addresses other rules. Counsel to the committee that recommended the revision provided this summary:

Subpoena (Rule 45 and Commitment Rule 25): prevents use of ex parte investigation or discovery by: (a) expressly requiring the party issuing a subpoena to a non-party to allow all parties to participate in any production that occurs after issuance of the subpoena to a non-party, including any change in production —whether at a different time or with a different scope of production; and (b) creates a seven-day period after service of a subpoena during which the production cannot take place to permit other parties to seek a protective order against the discovery occurring.  Concerns were raised during the comment period about subpoenas for trial and commitment proceedings requiring a shorter time frame.  The Court has relocated some of the changes proposed by the committee and added language clarifying that the 7-day period relates to production subpoenas.  The Court also added a separate 24-hour period for commitment cases in the Commitment Rules.

Taxation of costs (Rule 54 and Gen. R. Prac. 127): clarifies the procedure for taxing costs by: (a) establishing deadlines for submitting costs and objections; (b) allowing determination of costs, at the court’s discretion, by either the court administrator or district court judge, with an appeal to the district court judge if the administrator determines costs as is now allowed; (c) remove limits in Gen. R. Prac. 127 on the amount of expert witness fees that can be taxed by the administrator; and (d) creation of a revised taxation of costs submission form to be developed by the State Court Administrator and modeled generally on the form used in Minnesota’s appellate courts (a suggested form was included in the committee’s November 2009 report).

So, say goodbye to June and “embrace” July and all that it brings.

© Nancy Hupp for Practice Blawg, 2010. | Permalink | No comments yet | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Lis Pendens, Real Property, Summons

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

The summons does not mince words. The current Summons informs the recipient that “You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiff’s attorney . . . .” The new summons cuts to the quick and states in bold print: “You Are Being Sued.” In plain English the summons informs the recipient that the plaintiff has “started a lawsuit against you . . . do not throw these papers away.”  Compare the current summons to the revised one:

The current summons typically ends there. The revised summons, however,  provides five additional paragraphs of generally useful information, telling a defendant “you must respond to each claim” and “you will lose your case if you do not send a written response to the complaint to the person who signed this Summons.” It also has general information about finding legal help, though reiterates that the defendant must provide a written Answer to the complaint even if the defendant does not have an attorney.

A copy of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Order with the new summons language is here, and we’ve provided the full language below.  We’ll also have an updated Summons available on practicelaw before July 1, though the new summons will not be effective until July 1, 2010.

1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. The Plaintiff has started a lawsuit against you. The Plaintiffs Complaint against you [is attached to this summons] [is on file in the office of the court administrator of the above-named court].* Do not throw these papers away. They are official papers that affect your rights. You must respond to this lawsuit even though it may not yet be filed with the Court and there may be no court file number on this summons.

2. YOU MUST REPLY WITHIN 20** DAYS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. You must give or mail to the person who signed this summons a written response called an Answer within 20** days of the date on which you received this Summons. You must send a copy of your Answer to the person who signed this summons located at:

3. YOU MUST RESPOND TO EACH CLAIM. The Answer is your written response to the Plaintiffs Complaint. In your Answer you must state whether you agree or disagree with each paragraph of the Complaint. If you believe the Plaintiff should not be given everything asked for in the Complaint, you must say so in your Answer.

4. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR CASE IF YOU DO NOT SEND A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT TO THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THIS SUMMONS. If you do not Answer within 20** days, you will lose this case. You will not get to tell your side of the story, and the Court may decide against you and award the Plaintiff everything asked for in the complaint. If you do not want to contest the claims stated in the complaint, you do not need to respond. A default judgment can then be entered against you for the relief requested in the complaint.

5. LEGAL ASSISTANCE. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you do not have a lawyer, the Court Administrator may have information about places where you can get legal assistance. Even if you cannot get legal help, you must still provide a written Answer to protect your rights or you may lose the case.

6. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties may agree to or be ordered to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process under Rule 114 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice. You must still send your written response to the Complaint even if you expect to use alternative means of resolving this dispute.

[7. To be included only if this lawsuit affects title to real property:

THIS LAWSUIT MAY AFFECT OR BRING INTO QUESTION TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY located in ________ County, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows:

[Insert legal description of property]

The object of this action is ]

© Gregory Luce for Practice Blawg, 2010. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: Summons

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh